Widening Conversational Scope: A Preamble
In the articles A Community of Rewilding Means Adults Maintaining Accord, and When the State Assigns Blame, I started a line of inquiry I want to continue here. Using the examples of the Gypsy Roma, as studied by the essayists in Gypsy Law, edited by Walter Weyrauch, I saw that an intact, relatively animist, tribal people successfully retained their identity and cultural vitality amidst the constant daily horrors of civilization’s growth economy. How do they keep their connection to Family, to Tribe, in the face of the commodifying machine who sees them as yet unapportioned human resources?
I have identified a contributing factor to this survival (and thrival!), in the kris romaniya. The kris works as a community hearing in which respected and experienced folk ‘judges’, after hearing wide-ranging testimony, essentially brainstorm a resolution that their community will support. The judgement has no other enforcement than the willingness and social pressure of the community itself, hence the importance of experienced and wise judges who can find these kinds of resolutions.
At the kris romaniya, participants can speak (according to Gypsy Law, also known as the romaniya) only in Romany, the Roma language related to Sanskrit. The audience and community will shout down any use of English. Pay attention to this: the kris has narrowed scope here. If you cannot speak Romany, the laws do not apply to you, and yet you also cannot apply to the laws. No non-Roma can attend a kris.
The Roma in fact accommodate the legal system of the state as best they can, for crimes between Gypsies and non-Gypsies. They also have a fair amount of cultural skepticism toward’s the state’s legal system, not seeming to particularly expect fairness or benefits from engaging it. They probably see it more as a natural predator, or a storm, a force which they must accomodate and adroitly bystep to survive, but one which they cannot ’stop’ or ask for fair treatment as they would from a Roma. They simply adapt.
I say all of this so we can get to the meaty bits, namely: how the community and the krisnatori (folk judges) use the kris to accomplish all kinds of goals, goals that a court of the state (say, an average American court of law) would find way beyond their scope.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Hey Willem,
Quite amazing that a people can still practice their own traditional ‘judicial’ cultural ways. I would have thought it impossible, or close to impossible. Inspiring.
I like that: “The kris works as a community hearing in which respected and experienced folk ‘judges’, after hearing wide-ranging testimony, essentially brainstorm a resolution that their community will support…”
And I especially like this:
“… [ The judgement has no other enforcement than the willingness and social pressure of the community itself ], hence the importance of experienced and wise judges who can find these kinds of resolutions.”
Thanks for sharing that.
Later alligator
-Misko
February 28th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
YES! Inspiring. We must start finding our own ways, for own people, that works for us; no one else will do this on our behalf! Them trying to do so would in fact recreate the same old problem all over again. We must heal our own people.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
hey willem, thanks for creating this little space of “communIty hearing”, i have a lot of interest around the topic of public space, how it is that we all get ‘heard’ and maintain accord…
our current postmodern experiments around the agora these days lead most of us to the internet as we’ve see the blossoming of the web 2.0 world,
here’s to better intergration of cyberspace and the physical community that we all crave…
March 1st, 2009 at 12:34 am
Willem, I’m intrigued by these posts about the Roma and Tzutujil as examples of indigenous and intact peoples’ ways of resolving community conflict. Such a system does require a true community-sized community (i.e., village or tribe- not empire!) in order to work. The notion of everybody knowing everyone else (or at least knowing someone’s distant cousin…) seems key, and so it’s axiomatic that an empire (say, Britain, the source of our American legal system) couldn’t possibly employ the community method as its primary legal system, it’s just too big and unwieldy of a society for that. In fact, a jury of one’s “peers” is actually a jury of strangers, and our legal system disqualifies judges and jurors who do have personal connections to the litigants. This considered essential to maintain a fair and impartial judicial process, and in the context of what our legal system does, how it functions, that is appropriate. But it is indeed the way of the empire and not of the village….
I had thought on first reading your post about the Kris that I ought to give some defense of the American legal system (given that I once walked that path and did so with love and dedication, though it now echos only in the wake of my ocean-washed footsteps). But it’s not my job or place to do that, though I can say that it does do many things well for what it is. There is a kind of beauty in the notion that an adversarial process serves as a crucible to burn away the dross and arrive at the ember of truth. Sometimes it even works, though there is a great cost. And the truth is, in civil matters (criminal being a different animal altogether) the vast majority of cases never go to trial, but are resolved in settlement negotiations (where the conventional so-called wisdom defines a successful result as each party coming away from it only “reasonably unhappy”). Hmm, inspiring work, isn’t it? Also, mediation as an alternative dispute resolution tool has expanded greatly in recent years, particularly in the areas that truly do not lend themselves to good results via an adversarial stance, particularly family law involving children. But it’s still just a little pocket living inside the larger paradigm.
I found it wonderfully synchronistic (and heartening) that today’s Oregonian featured a story about Ronault “Polo” Catalani, a Portland man (and lawyer!) , originally from Indonesia, who advocates tirelessly on behalf of immigrant communities in Portland specifically with respect to this type of community and “cultural” based way of resolving conflict. It’s so very a propos of what you are talking about! Here’s the link (though O stories have a way of disappearing quickly): http://www.oregonlive.com/living/index.ssf/2009/02/ronault_polo_catalani_provides.html
Finally, I believe that the Hassidic Jewish communities (at least in Brooklyn) also approach ‘disputes’ in a similar way. Not surprising; plus they’ve got all that Torah as an authoritative source for endless village debate.
all blessings!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:30 am
Welcome Doris!
I read that article on Ronault Catalini and got very excited. I will share that with many people, and think about it a lot, I can tell already.
Also, thanks for the reminder on the Hassidic Jewish communites private lawmaking processes.
As for the U.S. legal system and what it does well…hrm. Well, it definitely does what it does. It surprises me to hear you talk about it affectionately, but I know something must have inspired your years of lawyering.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:32 am
Michael!:
Thanks for stopping by. Glad to hear that the articles resonated with you.